Murder convict whose personality shifted after brain tumour removal to serve life sentence

High Court deducts two years from 10-year minimum imprisonment for mental impairment

Murder convict whose personality shifted after brain tumour removal to serve life sentence

New Zealand’s High Court imposed life imprisonment and a 10-year minimum imprisonment period on a murder convict, with a two-year deduction from the starting point for the defendant’s guilty plea, persistent personality disturbance, and other personal factors. 

In R v Cameron, [2025] NZHC 1505, the defendant’s brain tumour removal at age 15 caused a brain injury, which triggered significant shifts in his personality, including aggressive outbursts that led to his psychiatric admission. 

Under the Mental Health Act 1965, the defendant became a patient at Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch in 1970. After that, he resided at psychiatric hospitals in the North Island until his return to Hillmorton Hospital in 1992, where he lived as a voluntary patient for some time. 

Around 2021, the defendant started working as a gardener for the victim and her husband. The defendant maintained these gardening duties after her husband died in 2022. 

When the defendant was about to move into new accommodation at the hospital, he expressed anxiety about this coming change. 

One morning in October 2024, the defendant left the hospital to visit the victim’s property in Mount Pleasant Road, Christchurch, where she was then 83 years old and living alone. After meeting her at the garage door, he picked up a small axe from inside the garage. 

The defendant struck the victim’s head with the tool multiple times, which eventually led to fatal injuries. He returned to the hospital. That afternoon, he revealed what occurred to two nurses and asked them to call the police. The discovery of the victim’s body came three days later. 

The parties’ counsel agreed that the defendant should receive a life imprisonment sentence for the murder charge under s. 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In the present proceeding, the main issue was the minimum imprisonment period after which he could apply for parole. 

The Crown suggested a starting point of 12–13 years, considering the offence’s aggravating features and a two-year deduction to reflect the defendant’s guilty pleas and personal factors. On the other hand, the defendant’s lawyer proposed a minimum 10-year period, considering the defendant’s age, health, and other circumstances. 

Life sentence imposed

The High Court of New Zealand ruled that a life imprisonment sentence would not be manifestly unjust and would be in line with the purposes of s. 103 of the Sentencing Act. The court held that the defendant knowingly killed a vulnerable woman without her provocation and displayed no genuine remorse. 

The court decided that the defendant presented a clear danger, which offset its sympathy for the brain injury’s contribution to his offence and justified imposing a life sentence to safeguard the community. 

Regarding the minimum imprisonment period, the court determined that a starting point of 12 years would meet the purposes of s. 103 of the Sentencing Act. The court agreed with the Crown’s suggested two-year deduction. The court considered the defendant’s advanced age and health state. 

The court found that the defendant experienced a personality change due to another medical condition. Specifically, he displayed notable apathy and indifference after his brain tumour removal. The court saw a clear causal connection between the mental impairment and his offence and deemed medication unlikely to change his rigid thinking and diminished empathy. 

The court acknowledged multiple moderately aggravating circumstances. The court noted that the elderly victim resided alone, trusted the defendant, and did not provoke the attack that happened in her home, where she was supposed to feel safe. 

The court also noted that the defendant used a weapon in the offence and significantly harmed the victim’s family. The court added that the defendant intended to kill the victim, given that he struck her head and catastrophically injured her. 

However, the court saw no real premeditation in this case since the defendant had a history of threatening to harm or kill people without following through and had used a weapon taken from the scene of the offence.